zlacker

You would have 0.01% chance of being wrong. How high would it need to be to warrant, in your eyes, checking if your family members are alive, instead of assuming they are? 0.1%? 1%? 10%? And why?

>>peferr+(OP)
The world is full of a mean average of people who, believe it or not, do not run statistical analysis before deciding if they should care for their loved ones.

The world is full of real people, with real understandable concerns for their families and friends.

Not only that, but it isn't about the number who were killed anyway. It is about the probability of your friend being in that location at the time of the disaster which is much, much higher.

No one thinks 'I wonder if Jack was killed, he was at that park today'. They think 'I wonder if Jack was in the CBD, he works nearby!'

Statistically validated concerns or not, the very real effect of this part of human nature is that the phone infrastructure goes down and that sucks for everyone.

>>ehnto+L5
Did you read the post to which my reply was directed? I'm not addressing these questions to you or to one of the "people who do not run statistical analysis before deciding if they should care for their loved ones". I'm addressing these questions to someone who apparently does run statistical analysis.

>>peferr+9z
Yes my apologies, I didn't realise I was commenting on the child comment. I was intending to reply to the comment you had replied to.